Kane Starkiller wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Anything that acts by DET rules. What don't you get? It's terribly simple.
Explain those "DET rules" if they are so simple then. Why exactly do rings disprove "DET" and point to a chain reaction?
These two questions are different.
First one doesn't require an explantion. Google around for direct energy transfer.
The second one is a consequence of an exotic effect occuring inside the target, hyperspace related.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I never claimed such a thing, and I think it's not the first time in this thread you made that strawman. Once, an error. Twice, you should start reconsidering your position with more honesty.
If it didn't came from the planet than it had to come from the Death Star. What are you arguing exactly?
None. When a house is hit by a missile fired from a plane, the plane didn't provide the destructive power, nor the house. The destructive power comes from the missile, and the plane never had to generate the equivalent power of the chemical explosive to destroy that house.
The analogy is naturally limited by the fact that the Death Star can create its own "projectile", but it fits on the rest.
Yes, the superlaser is created by the DS, but nothing shows that the planet busting energy is delivered by the beam (via DET). What we globally all argue here, in opposition to you, is that the superlaser generated an effect which caused a much more violent explosion than what the reactor could have caused by firing a real laser, for example.
This is nothing new, of course, it has been said a thousand times already. Maybe you don't agree with it, but asking for repetition serves no purpose, so this ends here.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's bull because it's contradicted by the very movie and you have not provided any solid basis beyond your quickly made claim presented as fact.
You are evading. You said that planetary matter turning from blue to white is "bull" because you "very much doubt" it can cool off that quickly. Prove it can't cool off that quickly. Your vague appeals to "move contradicting it" don't cut it.
You are the one dodging the request of evidence. Let's say I'm not capable of doing that calc. What do you do? Claim victory? Are you capable of doing the calculation proving that the hot matter will cool down to blue?
Then do it. You made the remarkable claim that it could cool down that fast.
As a matter of fact, even the DVD version shows that the matter cooling down from super white state immediately reaches for orange or red hues. There's no blue to see there, and oh surprise, the only zone which shows some blueness is precisely the one which has been the less affected by the blast. All other regions which display mass ejection beyond a shadow of a doubt utterly lack the claimed blue luminosity.
So not only you are the one making the funny claims, but you've been ignoring not one but two facts straight from the movie, ergo no mass expansion on that crescent (hint: heavy stuff ejected from the core of the planet doesn't stop in space all of sudden) and total lack of blue luminosity at the point of impact or on the gradient edges of the fireballs.
M. Oragahn wrote:No, the haze just inflated a tad and then didn't move after that. Man, you can't even understand pictures. What should I do with you?
Get power DVD or virtualdub (this one is free if I'm correct). Go frame by frame, and just get it through your skull once and for all.
So again, instead of avoiding the question, once you'll have observed the lack of expansion of the lower left crescent, please answer to this:
I'd like you to prove that the planet can be heated up to that level to warrant a blue luminosity, and still retain its shape that much.
I did. At no point does the explosion stop.
What explosion? There's not even an explosion on that size, just a sudden whitening of the atmosphere.
So this is just another mistake on your part.
Try to avoid turning it into a lie while you still have time to retract.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Ok, so no evidence, mere dodging, as I thought.
You have probably noticed that even at the point of impact, it goes from white to yellow/orange within one frame. Drop that BS about cooling that can occur so fast that you can miss between two frames. That's BS.
You still have it backwards. You are the one who claims that it cannot go from blue to yellow/orange in one frame. Go ahead and prove it.
You made the claim, I said no.
You haven't even proved it in the first place, and worse, you haven't even managed to show any form of evidence from the film.
Everything is against you on this point.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:You don't get them, it's not really my problem. Anyone else would have understood that eons ago. Somehow, your brain is stuck in a neural loop. Go figure.
Your constant vague references to the supposed explanations you gave but I just can't understand are irrelevant. You provided no explanation whatsoever other than repeatedly stating the word "exotic" and even stated outright that you don't need to explain anything.
I don't have to explain how the superlaser works in detail. I just look at the recharge times, what the station was said to be capable of at that time, I use logic and don't consider it likely that modifications on the capacitors would have been brought at the same time they were charged with planet destroying energies, and more.
This is just looking at the facts and applying common sense.
This leads me to conclude that you can saturate a target with whatever mechanism the superlaser is about and, at some point, trigger exotic effects.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Conspicuous lack of evidence is enough to know it's not there, especially when the author takes a great deal mentionning all the other details and yet misses the biggest one, the one that would be the easiest to notice.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I suggest you remember that.
What don't you understand about
conspicuous?
Could you tell me why would an observer, being able to watch the scene from a good distance with all sorts of scanners at hand, focus on the volcanos, tidal waves, earthquakes, but literally miss the most obvious super massive ejecta and crater?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:NDF is not referenced in official Trek canon either as far as I know, and even if it was, I couldn't care less.
It's merely an easy way to describe some phenomenon, as understood by most debaters.
I am not interested what fan inventions are familiar among what debaters. Describe your "NDF" theory and show where is it mentioned in Star Wars canon or stop making things up.
Almost nothing is mentionned about the superlaser, so there's enough room to make things up in that case, because it's not pejorative here. There's room for imagination, to bring an hypothesis after observation.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Rated by the same book where stupid claims are made about shields and weapons, accelerations and what have you.
Also remember that e25 J was what you claimed for 1/3 on your scale, to fit with the initial Despayre shots.
1/25 from the reactor didn't make a big difference in the final output, since Tenn still talked about the precharged 4% doing the job, nothing else, regardless of the reactor's immediate output, showing that at 4%, the increase of energy was minimal in regards of what they already had. Therefore, as we're speaking of percentages, 100% wouldn't be particularily higher.
That they are stupid is your opinion in which I'm not interested. It's official. And they vaporized a carrier. Again this only allows us to calculate the lower limit. How much of an overkill the beam was is unknown.
It's official nonsense that's debunked. If you're naïve enough, if you lack objectivity, the ability to criticize certain sources, and if you blindly drink official stuff in a religious way, instead of looking at facts from the movies themselves with intelligence, so be it, but the debate will pretty much end there then, because I'm not interested in zealots.
I don't need someone preaching me with his bible.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Precisely what I thought. You grossly exagerated the necessary output. Even if you had to output more energy in order to vaporize a third more of water in order to get enough extra energy to vape the amount you mention, you're alredy 3 orders of magnitude above what's necessary.
My point stands that you're going to have a hard time finding a scale making sense, and fitting with all elements.
I would suggest you think things through before responding. Baikal lake is 600km long,about 70km wide and 758m deep on average. So what percentage of energy will the lake receive? Let us calculate the percentage of energy lake will receive on the middle point between impact and the edge of the lake. That is the distance of 150km. At that point the surface of the hemisphere over which radiation expands will be 141,371km2. Crossectional area of the lake will be 70km width times 0.758km depth which is 53.06km2 or 106.12km2 total since shockwave will hit both sides of the lake. Thus the percentage of energy that will be received by that lake is 0.075%. Which means that in order to vaporize the lake the beam actually needs to be 8*10^25J. And that still doesn't account for the fact that even the energy that actually hits the water will not heat it up uniformly but be wasted on heating up the nearest patch of water beyond vaporization which will further increase the energy requirement.
I absolutely don't get the logic behind this area fiddling after the hemisphere bit and how you mix numbers.
Sure, you need more energy than with a properly throughout spread of the energy over the whole water volume, but did you consider the effect of the superlaser. It may not directly vape the whole water, but the amount of energy released there would surely put a blanker of superhot atmosphere over said lake, and vape it with time.
For example, I pick Wong's calculator, a nuclear explosion of ten teratons would generate a fireball with a radius of 333 km.
The ground contact fireball would have a radius of 440 km.
Even if there's going to be a lot of waste, the lake will be within the range of the energy liberated. If you send more hot matter into the air, it won't cool off before hours, and logically return to the surface sooner than that. Such matter would largely land back into the lake and over. The problem would be that the explosion would have kicked most of the ocean away.
Oh, besides, there's the weird idea that with such a shot, the technicians would be more concerned about the rather flat lake boiling off than the super crater formed in lieu of the impact point, leading, nearly worth a consequent mass extinction event, which is totally in opposition with what Tenn considered.
There's also the fact that to mitigate those numbers, Tenn talked about beam
s, which helps a great deal to spread the energy with much more parcimony:
Tenn wrote:True, you could still pump out some pretty nasty low-power beams --- and the definition of low here was still bigger than what a Star Destroyer could manage, even letting all the hardware spit at once -- but it would be a duster instead of a buster. You could scorch a city or two, boil away a large lake or perhaps even a small sea, but that was about it.
As far as we are concerned, it could be a series of low powered beams.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:If there's no window to hyperspace or anything related to hyperspace, all reactions occur within purely realspace related parameters.
Hell, hypermatter is supposedly stored.
So what? They store hyperspace now, and it costs them nothing doing that?
Notice, besides, that when can also refer to the context, and not necessarily imply cause and consequence, meaning that only when the hypermatter is constrained to realspace, reactors can work on it to obtain great outputs.
Yes when the matter is constrained to realspace the energy is obtained. That is what reactors do. Hypermatter which exists in hyperspace is constrained to realspace inside a hyperreactor releasing energy in the process. Hence they release more energy than what can be obtained by realspace reactions.
And yet, the reactions occur in real space, within reactors located in real space, and are said by the ICS to be all about annihilation.
The DS book says that matter-energy conversion (annihilation) couldn't provide the energy that destroyed Alderaan.
Not to say that you completely miss the fact that hypermatter is already constrained to real space inside the silos.
Any reaction that happens in realspace, no matter the reactants it involves, remains a realspace reaction. That's just going for the fact, the essence of the definition.
The only way to cheat this is to have a reaction, say matter annihilation, occuring outside of realspace. This is why I suggested the hyperspace related window created inside the reactor.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Excuse me, but where?
Oh wait, nothing in sight.
Concession accepted then.
You can play games all you wish. Hyperjump is quantified quite nicely even if you pretend it isn't there.
You made a claim, you said you have calculations to support your claim "below", yet you didn't present them.
Since this is just too big for a lie, I assumed it was an error, but obviously you didn't even realize your mistake.
So one last time, present the calculations.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:When an author claims high ROF at kiloton level for a ship which bares the highest ROF ever seen from a ship in SW and yet only reaches at best low gigajoules, and much more likely megajoule ranges, yes, it's bull.
And when the same author claims that shielded fighters could withstand kilotons of energy and yet get downed by megajoules, again, yes, I say bull.
Or about claims of warship "neutronium" hulls completely obliterated by shots which are definitely sub kiloton (ROTS, you know, the film... hello?), again, that's mere bull.
Or claims 900 km wide battlestations when purely and simply contradicted by countless sources, or claims thousands of gees for ships based on the demonstrated extremely faulty observation of one single sequence in the films, again, it's BS.
When you know that one high figure is so because it has to fit with the rest of the high figure, and when you see that the truth point to much lower figures, you know that this self supporting network of figures he's pulled out of his decidedly impolite person(s) crumbles like hot turd.
That is not even opinion, we have enough of said evidence here, on this forum.
How do you know it reaches low gigajoules?
Check the forum, it's about AOTC and the Slave-I. It may be on page two. You can also consider that the bolts are not even capable of properly
fragmenting 10 meters wide asteroids they hit.
Hence megajoules.
How do you know shots in ROTS are sub kiloton?
Because we have such a bolt (fired by what some sources described as mass drivers, which is not terribly convincing), it slams through a thin portion of the hull, into one of the rooms of the port guns, and does far far less than a kiloton explosion. It's basically behaving like a
bunker buster.
Those same projectiles were punching huge holes in the thicker regions of the armoured hull, and kicking large chunks of said hull up.
900km Death Star is supported by certain shots in the ROTJ.
And contradicted by an equal, if not superior amount of shots, and contradicted by the DS book saying DSI is 160 km wide and the ROTJ novelization saying the DSII was less than twice as big as the first one.
Death Star accelerated at 262g when it orbited Yavin as I have shown in the "Construction of ships" threat.
Powever by whatever generator there, and that's still one OOM below the claims of Saxton.
There is nothing surprising about smaller ships have thousands of g accelerations.
Thousands of gs claimed for the vast bulk of warships in Wars, not starfighters.
Finally I'm not interested in psychological analysis of Dr. Saxton and his contacts.
If you are incapable of discussing his work without dragging him personally that only speaks about how weak your case is.
Yes, I'm weak, and he's a wanker. Happy?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Ha Ha Ha.
No.
So provide the quote or shut up, as simple as that.
Hyperspace jump is jump to hyperspace. If you wish to deny reality I can't help you.
[/quote]
Hint:
- First one is in the form of an adjective, applied to a noun that is used to describe a whole trip from point A to point B.
- Second one refers to an action, relative to doing what's necessary to start that trip.
Now please provide the quote that precisely mentions "jump to hyperspace" and not "hyperspace jump".
Mr. Oragahn wrote:The Death Star was a secret project. Star Destroyers are not. *sigh*
And his estimation wasn't off. Star Destroyers can't destroy planets. Hell, one would have issues completely blasting a 20 km wide moon within hours.
So what if it was a secret project? It still casts his judgement of Imperial capabilites in doubt.
Hey, look, Solo didn't believe that the Empire could destroy a planet. Look, Solo is a cretin cause he didn't get his facts straight about a
secret weapon he wasn't aware of.
What an unreliable man he is!
Secondly could you provide the exact quote about the 20km moon. What exactly were they trying to do?
Thinking about what would be able to blast it as fast as possible before it hit a planet, and it's in the NJO thread here, Vector Prime.
The moon is Dobido.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:That's the way they speak, they've stored it, that's it.
'Sides, excuse me, but you're also claiming that between shots 2 and 3, they managed to go from e25 J (more or less) in slightly more than one hour, to e33 J within the very similar charge duration, by modifying the same experimental capacitors they were actually charging?
That's what? a mere increase of 8 orders of magnitude. Pah, peanuts!
These thirds, besides, were rapid recharge rates. It's said in the book that they can cook up those thirds with a fast recharge. However, it's also said in the book that charging it full would take the best of a day, surely because there has to be a peak recharge capacity which can last only for that much time (a bit more than one hour), but when they need a full charge, it takes more than 12 hours, because there are obvious limits to how much the reactor can output on longer runs.
You realize that when you're doing a bit of tweaking on anything that is live, you have to unplug the stuff first... just in case... you might put your hand inside a conduit which has planet destroying levels of energy flowing through it, right?
You understand that it makes no sense, especially considering the minutia they went through during the whole development of the superweapon, the testing phases and all that stuff?
You comprehend that modifications to very sensible systems (from the book, not me) dealing with planet destroying energies, would be applied when, at least, the system was off, at least secure, right?
It doesn't matter how they speak. You can't store power. 33% power is avaliable but how much energy? It's not the same thing. 10^25J of energy released at a rate of 10^37W is still 10^25J.
By following SS13's nomenclature suggestion earlier on, that power is in reference to the abilities of the weapon, as strenght, not power as watts.
The Death Star has enough power to destroy a planet. I think it was clear that power was a synonym for strenght, capacity, faculty, or aptitude here, all fitting anyway.
Secondly your own incredulity that they could've increased the recharge rate by 8 orders of magnitude after initial testes is irrelevant. You need evidence not your incredulity.
It's particularily relevant since they said they obtained the 1/3s with fast recharges.
If these two first recharges were fast recharges, what do we call a recharge that is many OOMs faster, which can provide enough energy for planet busting, which was formerly claimed not possible yet with the capacitors' state, and which were said to require more than half a day to be charged for such a power of destruction?
A super super fast recharge, within an hour and a quarter? It doesn't fit.
And what about the fact that the reactor working at 4%, along the capacitors, didn't make much of a difference in the end, since the technician completely ignored the reactor's output and emphasized the capacitor's discharge?
Multiply this 25 times, and you're far from being able to attain the recharge needed for planetary mass scattering.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:And praytell, how long do you think it will take for the top of the fireball to cool down to more opaque levels, when you're dealing with, at the very least, many petatons of energy if not quite more?
Within one hour, nothing of that stuff would have time to cool down to those levels.
That is your job. Since you are claiming it can't cool down fast enough provide calculations then.
Again, I'm afraid you got your burden of proof wrong here. You made the claim, you defend it.
For example, the same amount of energy applied to a nuclear reaction will generate fireballs lasting for hours.
Though the distribution of energy is ought to be different with a particle beam which will largely and directly heat up the ground, it's still a good point of reference, maybe one or two OOMs up or down, but we're still far short of the alleged e25 J.
Without going into details, what's the basic evidence you have to claim that matter will cool within a few minutes, if not within less than a minute?
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Excuse me, but I'm not responsible of your lazyness. The excerpt in question has been posted three or four times in this thread now.
I demonstrated, rather easily, that a character uses that sort of continuous present tense to say that "they" are firing fired at the planet, AFTER the planet has been hit and the effects described.
What don't you get? It's rather clear that this happens very, very fast.
Yes "very very fast". I'm still not hearing a number.
You didn't notice the use of a
present continuous tense to describe an immediate action (a superlaser hits fast, within fractions of a second) and effects which have
already been observed by characters.
You can hardly make it more compact, y'know.
Are you going to argue on the word
compact now, because you couldn't find any more pathetic excuse to deny a fact carved in stone by the use of one of the most basic tenses english has?
Nor any calculations that show why expanding dust couldn't cool off enough to appear black due to contrast.
Prove it. You say it can happen. I'm not going to do your job by proving a negative.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Sun spots?
Excuse me, but are you claiming that the low end destruction of Despayre was governed by the rules applying to high energy fusion reactions and complex convections due to random magnetic fields of stars?
Assume your analogy please, and make the link between the two.
The nature of sun spots and origin of solar power are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with why sun spots appear black. They appear black because they are several thousand degrees colder than the surrounding area. They are still white hot but due to contrast they appear black. Which is exactly what I'm saying could've happened in the novel.
So at one time, it's because it's matter cooling down, and at another time, it's because it's following the ring of fire.
The book does mention the black waves expanding as well across the planet.
You also have to tell me why the holo would display that cooler region of fire as black, while it also displayed the beam as green, and the planet as green and blue (and obviously still did has the waves of white and black spread further).
If the holo displays some black there, it's precisely because there's a very black spot which anyone could see for real, with mere eye globes.
Eventually, you can pretend that luminosity on the holo was downplayed, filtered out, but the colours thus far fit remarkably well.
Orange for fire. (Again, the much more violent destruction of Alderaan shows that the fireballs directly fade to red and orange.)
Green for jungle.
Emerald green for superlaser.
Blue for ocean.
Again who says they have only one speed of recharge? 10^28J in a day is 10^33W. Thus they can easily fill up a planet destroying shot in a few minutes.
What the hell? e28 J over a whole day means a power of 115.47 x e20 W.